William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

Simply a part, God is able to be one and different with creation at the same time simultaneously......The is a Vedic teaching calledAchintya Bheda Abheda....) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference............

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

Simply a part, God is able to be one and different with creation at the same time simultaneously......The is a Vedic teaching calledAchintya Bheda Abheda....) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference............

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

Simply a part, God is able to be one and different with creation at the same time simultaneously......The is a Vedic teaching calledAchintya Bheda Abheda....) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference............

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

I'm not sure what WLC's stance is on the matter, but it seems inchoate to think that God has "parts" to be "placed" somewhere. God, presumably, does not have spatial parts whatsoever (if not temporal parts either, but I haven't read enough on the matter to provide clear insight).

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

I'm not sure what WLC's stance is on the matter, but it seems inchoate to think that God has "parts" to be "placed" somewhere. God, presumably, does not have spatial parts whatsoever (if not temporal parts either, but I haven't read enough on the matter to provide clear insight).

Well God is defined as omnipresent and transcendent. To be omnipresent one must exist within time, to be transcendent one must exist outside. This only seems to make sense if part of God is inside time, and part beyond time.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

Simply a part, God is able to be one and different with creation at the same time simultaneously......The is a Vedic teaching calledAchintya Bheda Abheda....) is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference............

And by the way, God is also time itself...and not entirely.

"Simply a part"

I thought it was partial, thank you. I was just curious.

Allow me to explain a little further.........On how God is able to be one and different with creation at the same time..........Take the example of the sun and the sunshine for instance......The sun and the sunshine are both the same in quality, the sunshine shares it's existience with the sun in chemical qualitative attributes, the sunshine is also an extension of the sun, the sunshine is able to be everywhere at the same time whilst the sun is situated in a single place, mighty.... Both are the same in chemical qualitive attributes but both are yet different, If the sun was to enter your bedroom window, you would be foolish to think the sunshine entered your window. both are yet the same and different. This is how God is one and yet different with the creation....In other words, he is able to extend himself everywhere but at the same time be situated in a single spot.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

The cause of the universe by definition must be ultra-mundane, that is to say, not made of any composite parts. And so it makes little sense to say part of God would be in time while other parts wouldn't.

Furthermore, on presentism, each new moment is being dynamically upheld in creation so that the past no longer exists and the future doesn't yet exist.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

I'm not sure what WLC's stance is on the matter, but it seems inchoate to think that God has "parts" to be "placed" somewhere. God, presumably, does not have spatial parts whatsoever (if not temporal parts either, but I haven't read enough on the matter to provide clear insight).

Well God is defined as omnipresent and transcendent. To be omnipresent one must exist within time, to be transcendent one must exist outside. This only seems to make sense if part of God is inside time, and part beyond time.

With a temporal universe, God is still transcendent as in not dependent on the universe's existence. When I make a taco, I'm transcendent from it, since it comes to be by creation of my hands and stove, but passes away into my belly. The taco's existence is contingent upon me, its creator.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

The cause of the universe by definition must be ultra-mundane, that is to say, not made of any composite parts. And so it makes little sense to say part of God would be in time while other parts wouldn't.

Furthermore, on presentism, each new moment is being dynamically upheld in creation so that the past no longer exists and the future doesn't yet exist.

God is the source time, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, but yet God is separate from time and also at the same time the source of time. It does not make sense to say that time exist separate from God, Time is a part of God but not entirely all of God.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

I'm not sure what WLC's stance is on the matter, but it seems inchoate to think that God has "parts" to be "placed" somewhere. God, presumably, does not have spatial parts whatsoever (if not temporal parts either, but I haven't read enough on the matter to provide clear insight).

Well God is defined as omnipresent and transcendent. To be omnipresent one must exist within time, to be transcendent one must exist outside. This only seems to make sense if part of God is inside time, and part beyond time.

With a temporal universe, God is still transcendent as in not dependent on the universe's existence.

Nobody was implying he would be dependent on the universe.

When I make a taco, I'm transcendent from it, since it comes to be by creation of my hands and stove, but passes away into my belly.

You are not part of the taco as you create it, so this is a false-analogy. If God exists, he places himself within time simultaneous with the creation of The Big Bang.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

I'm not sure what WLC's stance is on the matter, but it seems inchoate to think that God has "parts" to be "placed" somewhere. God, presumably, does not have spatial parts whatsoever (if not temporal parts either, but I haven't read enough on the matter to provide clear insight).

Well God is defined as omnipresent and transcendent. To be omnipresent one must exist within time, to be transcendent one must exist outside. This only seems to make sense if part of God is inside time, and part beyond time.

With a temporal universe, God is still transcendent as in not dependent on the universe's existence.

Nobody was implying he would be dependent on the universe.

Right, but that's what's meant by transcendent.

When I make a taco, I'm transcendent from it, since it comes to be by creation of my hands and stove, but passes away into my belly.

You are not part of the taco as you create it, so this is a false-analogy. If God exists, he places himself within time simultaneous with the creation of The Big Bang.

All analogies are false dude ;-) that's why they're analogous enough. But in a very real sense it is almost as if, temporarily, the taco and I are one when I consume its tasty goodness. In another sense, I interact with it dynamically, and this is what is meant by God creating a temporal state for himself and subsequently his creation.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

The cause of the universe by definition must be ultra-mundane, that is to say, not made of any composite parts. And so it makes little sense to say part of God would be in time while other parts wouldn't.

Furthermore, on presentism, each new moment is being dynamically upheld in creation so that the past no longer exists and the future doesn't yet exist.

God is the source time, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, but yet God is separate from time and also at the same time the source of time. It does not make sense to say that time exist separate from God, Time is a part of God but not entirely all of God.

Clearly I don't subscribe to a substantivalist Newtonian for God's co-existence with time. Leibniz clearly won that theological battle with his relationalist view and subsequently Einsteins relativity and so forth. Time had a beginning, God did not.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

By the way, after some more thought I realise that only the material body is affected by time, the spirit soul is not affected by time, it does not age, it does not wither, it can not be burned or cut or moistened by water, it does not undergo the effects of materiality and the law of physics do not apply to spirit, so in effect maybe God as spirit is not affected by time whatsoever.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

The cause of the universe by definition must be ultra-mundane, that is to say, not made of any composite parts. And so it makes little sense to say part of God would be in time while other parts wouldn't.

Furthermore, on presentism, each new moment is being dynamically upheld in creation so that the past no longer exists and the future doesn't yet exist.

God is the source time, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, but yet God is separate from time and also at the same time the source of time. It does not make sense to say that time exist separate from God, Time is a part of God but not entirely all of God.

Clearly I don't subscribe to a substantivalist Newtonian for God's co-existence with time. Leibniz clearly won that theological battle with his relationalist view and subsequently Einsteins relativity and so forth. Time had a beginning, God did not.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

I'm not sure what WLC's stance is on the matter, but it seems inchoate to think that God has "parts" to be "placed" somewhere. God, presumably, does not have spatial parts whatsoever (if not temporal parts either, but I haven't read enough on the matter to provide clear insight).

Well God is defined as omnipresent and transcendent. To be omnipresent one must exist within time, to be transcendent one must exist outside. This only seems to make sense if part of God is inside time, and part beyond time.

With a temporal universe, God is still transcendent as in not dependent on the universe's existence.

Nobody was implying he would be dependent on the universe.

Right, but that's what's meant by transcendent.

When I make a taco, I'm transcendent from it, since it comes to be by creation of my hands and stove, but passes away into my belly.

You are not part of the taco as you create it, so this is a false-analogy. If God exists, he places himself within time simultaneous with the creation of The Big Bang.

All analogies are false dude ;-) that's why they're analogous enough.

Then at the very least it was a weak analogy, because we are describing a creation with a simultaneous placement within that creation.

But in a very real sense it is almost as if, temporarily, the taco and I are one when I consume its tasty goodness.

Yes, but you are not one with it simultaneous to its creation.

In another sense, I interact with it dynamically, and this is what is meant by God creating a temporal state for himself and subsequently his creation.

Cool. I just wanted to know if theists believed that he was still beyond time even though he is in it. The answer seems to be yes. Thank you.

Then at the very least it was a weak analogy, because we are describing a creation with a simultaneous placement within that creation.

I thought it was a good analogy, good enough anyhow. But I don't know what you mean by God being somehow "placed into creation." It's not like God digs a hole and jumps into it, on the theist view, God sustains creation and upholds it moment by moment, so that if he were to stop doing so for any reason, time space matter and energy would cease. How he does this I don't know, but that's the classical theists view anyway. So it's not that God is somehow bound by his own creation, rather its that his creation is bound by him, I believe, in the sense I mean above.

But in a very real sense it is almost as if, temporarily, the taco and I are one when I consume its tasty goodness.

Yes, but you are not one with it simultaneous to its creation.

No and that is not all too relevant lol, it would be strange to think so. God is clearly distinct from his creation just like I'm clearly distinct from my taco... the point of the analogy was that the taco's existence was in some sense dependent upon my existence. You can split hairs on the matter all you like but that's all I was getting at there.

In another sense, I interact with it dynamically, and this is what is meant by God creating a temporal state for himself and subsequently his creation.

Cool. I just wanted to know if theists believed that he was still beyond time even though he is in it. The answer seems to be yes. Thank you.

I don't see how that can be concluded by what I said but sure. When theists say God is beyond time they mean causally beyond, not temporally beyond it.

At 5/1/2013 11:37:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:William Lane Craig states that God places himself in time at the moment of creation. Does he place the entirety of himself in time, or does he place part himself in time while the rest of him remains transcending time? Thank you.

I'm not sure what WLC's stance is on the matter, but it seems inchoate to think that God has "parts" to be "placed" somewhere. God, presumably, does not have spatial parts whatsoever (if not temporal parts either, but I haven't read enough on the matter to provide clear insight).

Well God is defined as omnipresent and transcendent. To be omnipresent one must exist within time, to be transcendent one must exist outside. This only seems to make sense if part of God is inside time, and part beyond time.

You have to define what you mean by "part." Some Christian theologians have argued that God has no parts (look up Divine Simplicity, which I believe was supported by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas). I don't think it makes sense to say that "part" of God exists in time or outside of time. I believe William Lane Craig would argue that God exists inside time because he created it, yet he transcends time because he existed "before" (that's causally prior, not temporally) he created time, and while he exists inside time, he is not bound by it (he doesn't change, grow older, etc.). That's my limited understand of how he might answer it, since I haven't read too much into it.

Then at the very least it was a weak analogy, because we are describing a creation with a simultaneous placement within that creation.

I thought it was a good analogy, good enough anyhow. But I don't know what you mean by God being somehow "placed into creation." It's not like God digs a hole and jumps into it, on the theist view,

So William Lane Craig does not have a theist view? His view is that God places himself in time at the moment of creation.

God sustains creation and upholds it moment by moment, so that if he were to stop doing so for any reason, time space matter and energy would cease. How he does this I don't know, but that's the classical theists view anyway. So it's not that God is somehow bound by his own creation, rather its that his creation is bound by him, I believe, in the sense I mean above.

When did I imply that placing himself in time would make him bound by his creation?

But in a very real sense it is almost as if, temporarily, the taco and I are one when I consume its tasty goodness.

Yes, but you are not one with it simultaneous to its creation.

No and that is not all too relevant lol, it would be strange to think so. God is clearly distinct from his creation just like I'm clearly distinct from my taco... the point of the analogy was that the taco's existence was in some sense dependent upon my existence. You can split hairs on the matter all you like but that's all I was getting at there.

Your analogy is not too relevant either, as I never implied that God placing himself in time would make him dependent on the universe. What is the point of this analogy?

In another sense, I interact with it dynamically, and this is what is meant by God creating a temporal state for himself and subsequently his creation.

Cool. I just wanted to know if theists believed that he was still beyond time even though he is in it. The answer seems to be yes. Thank you.

I don't see how that can be concluded by what I said but sure. When theists say God is beyond time they mean causally beyond, not temporally beyond it.

Of course they do not mean "temporally beyond time", that is logically contradictory. Nice straw-man.

I thought it was a good analogy, good enough anyhow. But I don't know what you mean by God being somehow "placed into creation." It's not like God digs a hole and jumps into it, on the theist view,

So William Lane Craig does not have a theist view? His view is that God places himself in time at the moment of creation.

Right but not in the sense you're getting at. He's said elsewhere what I have about God sustaining creation.

God sustains creation and upholds it moment by moment, so that if he were to stop doing so for any reason, time space matter and energy would cease. How he does this I don't know, but that's the classical theists view anyway. So it's not that God is somehow bound by his own creation, rather its that his creation is bound by him, I believe, in the sense I mean above.

When did I imply that placing himself in time would make him bound by his creation?

doughnuts? ;-)

No and that is not all too relevant lol, it would be strange to think so. God is clearly distinct from his creation just like I'm clearly distinct from my taco... the point of the analogy was that the taco's existence was in some sense dependent upon my existence. You can split hairs on the matter all you like but that's all I was getting at there.

Your analogy is not too relevant either, as I never implied that God placing himself in time would make him dependent on the universe. What is the point of this analogy?

Precisely.

I don't see how that can be concluded by what I said but sure. When theists say God is beyond time they mean causally beyond, not temporally beyond it.

Of course they do not mean "temporally beyond time", that is logically contradictory. Nice straw-man.